About your Search

20121006
20121014
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
and a former senior obama administration advisor to treasury secretary tim geithner. this is about an hour. >> good morning. i'm the vice president and codirector of the economic studies program here at brookings. i'm pleased to introduce one of the newest governors of the federal reserve board, jeremy stein. governor stein swore the oath of office on may 30th, 2012, to fill an unexpired term ending january 31st, 2018. this is not his first tour of duty in washington. in 2009 governor stein served in the obama administration as a senior advisor to the secretary of the treasury and on the staff of the national economic council. prior to his appointment to the fed board governor stein was a stafford professor of economics at harvard university where he taught courses in finance and undergraduate and ph.d programs. previously governor stein taught finance at mit's sloane school of management. before that he was an assistant professor at the harvard business school. governor stein has a distinguished research record. he has covered many topics including behaviorial finance and stock market eff
.s. catholic of bishops to the obama administration rules and the affordable health care act for contraceptive coverage in such cases. parenthetically, and this is the relevant in the room, both catholics disagree with the school teaching on contraception. >> i am one of those catholics. [laughter] in this case the institution i believe still has religious freedom, but other parties are involved and they have their freedoms, too, their religious freedom, in addition these catholic institutions receive government funding for their operations. so, you have here attention of these different conflicting rights going on here. the rules proposed by the obama administration first say that the church institutions had to provide contraceptive health care insurance for their and please. not only the u.s. catholic bishops, but many other catholics and many other proponents and religious liberty oppose the obama administration and regulation they then propose a compromise that such employees would be covered for contraception but the institution wouldn't have to pay for it. they call that a brilliant solu
of the obama administration officials to condemn the attack and mourn the death of ambassador christopher stevens and three other americans but as the state department has weathered the republican-led criticism of the warning signs before the september 11th attack, clinton has been invisible. clinton will not appear the oversight hearing on the libya attack where they've said they will question the state department security preparations and the administration's account of the attack. the state department plans to the interest in their career with other officials. ahead of the hearing they provided new details about the attack or asserting that there had been no way to predict or prevent the same assault. and as we read in the "the washington times" earlier, the report that the state department according to them took away any claims that this attack was due to the protest about that video to read that is the front page of the "the washington times" this morning. they also in case you are interested include a brief chronology of the aftermath of the attack on the u.s. consulate in libya if
, in a obama/biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple. the fact of the matter is that under the constitution we should be granted same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospital, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, etc. that's only fair. it's what the constitution calls for. and so we do support, we do support making sure that committed couples in the same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, to the rights of visitation, their rights of insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do. >> moderator: governor, would you support expanding that beyond alaska to the rest of the nation? palin: not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman and, unfortunately, that's sometimes where those steps lead. i also want to clarify, if there's any kind of suggestion from my answer that i would
in the syrian conflict than the obama administration has reflected. governor mitt romney's speech today is almost certain to raise the point whether it will raise it in a way that captures the public imagination and strikes them as sensible remains to be seen. but i would say that this survey and governor mitt romney's speech plus development on the ground may be the entering wedge for what i personally regard as an overdue public debate about what the united states ought to be doing in the syrian conflict. >> thank you so much. let me now turn to the apparent polarizations of the u.s. public opinion on foreign policy issues. perhaps not surprising for weeks out from the campaign in which the foreign policy has surprisingly begun to play a significant role in the campaign but what we see in the arab world is with the emergence of more space politics, polarization as well. a around a number of issues that relate to the relationship, the interaction between the states at transitions and the united states in the west more broadly. the result that americans seem to understand without the is
. >> there's a question here about something president obama did, which is a stopgap policy, which was essentially to say, my administration is not going to enforce deportation of laws as they pertain to younger immigrants who were born here, a legal immigrant parents commit them to school, have you got in trouble. were not going to deport them. is that a good idea? >> it's absolutely a great idea. politically he was brilliant. romney said of changing his policy are now bidding him. it's a policy that matters. >> the obama administration has supported more undocumented and probably the last five administrations put together. and you would not expect that from a democratic administration. i'm not quite sure why they've been so forceful, but they have been. the people that rupert is talking about is they would carry to age three months in this country and their parents arms. did they break the law? i don't know how it's written, but technically they had no right to come across the border. they did, but in terms of culpability, i mean, come on. these are people were self-selected grou
on the relationship between the obama administration and the u.s. supreme court. the author examines the recent addition of four justices in the past fife years -- five years and how it has affected the court's decisions on numerous cases including its recent ruling on health care. it's about an hour. [applause] >> thank you, mark. hello, everybody. so excited to be here in philadelphia. you know, i know that's just the usual pandering that goes on by speakers, but in my case it happens to be true. i am not myself from philadelphia, but my dad, jerry toobin, was overbrook high school -- [applause] oh, yeah. the panlderring has just begun, don't worry. [laughter] curtis institute, i don't know if we have any violinists here. and he went to temple as well. [applause] so, you know, and e taught me that -- he taught me that the streets were paved with tasty cake here, and i have enjoyed my visits ever since. [laughter] i would, um, i'm really happy to be talking about the oath today, it only came out two days ago. so far so good. [laughter] and, um, it's, um, it's, you know, it's exciting to -- you
obamacare trying to investigate the obama administration. and this is exactly what would be predicted. so what we have is separation of parties, not really separation of powers. because when you have unified government, you don't have oversight. and what we need to address is how do we get the benefit of oversight that you do get when you have divided government without paying the immense cost which is the near impossibility -- at least in our time now -- of passing response bive legislation. responsive legislation. >> i just have a question about kind of, like, the amendment process. so, like, our constitution's had hardly kind of any amendments, and some of them are kind of big like the fact i can vote. [laughter] and i just, like, the fact that i can vote, the fact that black people are no longer considered property, those are huge changes to, like, the philosophy of the constitution. and i don't know if they actually, like, even succeed to see how it's even the 14th amendment thing i thought didn't really change things for a long time. do you think that in a new constitution that an a
budget. they were asked for programs during the obama administration, and they've been cut and taken away since the president took power. the second part of that question is, in the jockeying over the sequester, does the commander-in-chief played a fundamentally different role than any of the other actors in the melodrama? does he have a different constitutional set of responsibilities than the others? and finally for dov, you alluded to the fact that in dollar terms the defense increases are relatively modest in comparison to the overall spending reforms that are necessary to get, to reach the governor's target of 20% of federal spending over all for all federal programs. that probably means pretty substantial cuts and entitlement spending. so if one is dependent upon the other, how does the governor intend to, within the time, space of a single administrati administration, make such a substantial and drastic change in government spending? >> so, i think this is a place where facts really do matter. and you know just remind people, the base budget for this year is about $525 billion, whi
the administration, it is something that has borne more fruit and is often realized. president obama's commitment to double our level of exports over the next five years. it is right to be concerned about america's trade deficit. but it is much healthier for america's economy, much better for the real purchasing power of american consumers, much better for having businesses engage in the business of the future rather than the business of the past, for us to move more balanced trade by increasing exports rather than reducing imports. some of that has to do with the negotiation and enforcement of trade agreements. more of it has to do with choices that we make. especially choices that we make in sectors that one doesn't always think of. there is fast scope, increased tourism in to the united states. if you think about it, tourism is a sector that provides vast opportunities and jobs with those with relatively little skill. not so long ago i had the opportunity to spend some time talking to the ceo of a major hotel chain who noted that of his senior management team, have had not gone to college and
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)